Cycling Central wrote:It's multi-functionality gone mad in an increasingly politically correct world. As you know I prefer to call a spade a shovel and I'm telling you roads are for cars.

But that's not all the editorial notes, catering to cyclists is expensive business - in fact this writer thinks it may be cheaper to house them offshore, or better yet, send them back to Melbourne or Copenhagen for their protection

wombatK wrote:While bicycle boxes might have made it on the Staysafe recommendations list (and into the Aus Road Rules), there aren't any in the CBD - but they would probably do more to promote cyclists safety than all of Clover's half-baked bi-directional cycle lanes.

I've got the privilege of riding along many of these cycle lanes each day on my route to and from work. Whilst I agree that the light phasing isn't the best, I don't understand the hate that cyclists have towards them.

+1The light phasing is superb along Kent St though, at a gentle pace i have to stop ONCE between the harbour bridge & King st (at market), everywhere else it is Sync'd up

itsaghostcar wrote:I've got the privilege of riding along many of these cycle lanes each day on my route to and from work. Whilst I agree that the light phasing isn't the best, I don't understand the hate that cyclists have towards them.

+1The light phasing is superb along Kent St though, at a gentle pace i have to stop ONCE between the harbour bridge & King st (at market), everywhere else it is Sync'd up

The slower pace also reduces the sweat + smell factor once you arrive at the office. Especially when one is running late

mikesbytes wrote:So this picture is actually supporting the need for the 'cycle first' lights

sorry - but unless i see a red light - then he didnt cross on the red.Odd how the red light somehow didnt make it into the photo

Just had another look at the photo... look at where the blue car is... the car is entirely in front of the end of the double whites (to the left of the car).Which means the car is IN the intersection - i.e. the lights must have gone green as the car is moving into the intersection.

wombatK wrote:While bicycle boxes might have made it on the Staysafe recommendations list (and into the Aus Road Rules), there aren't any in the CBD - but they would probably do more to promote cyclists safety than all of Clover's half-baked bi-directional cycle lanes.

I've got the privilege of riding along many of these cycle lanes each day on my route to and from work. Whilst I agree that the light phasing isn't the best, I don't understand the hate that cyclists have towards them.

+1The light phasing is superb along Kent St though, at a gentle pace i have to stop ONCE between the harbour bridge & King st (at market), everywhere else it is Sync'd up

There is no syncing between lights along Kent. Its easily provable by riding it at night, in which case you will have to stop for every light. Tested it once for a couple of laps, and I got 39 red lights, and 1 green. In 100% of the cases, the red light was demand based, ie I would NOT get a green until I went up to and sat on the detectors. If you get a rolling green its because of opposite direction bicycle traffic or a red light runner ahead of you, and the green period is only 5 seconds per 2-3 minute cycle too. I don't even know how we can reliably make a legal turn onto kent from king because the bicycle light goes red before the pedestrian light starts flashing - so if there are pedestrians, you can easily be blocked for the duration of your sequence.

Even during peak times, its easy to spend 2 or 3 minutes sitting there whilst cars travelling in your direction have a green light, and then cars not travelling in your direction have a green light, ie the wait time in the cycle lane is on average longer than in any other users - including pedestrians because the pedestrian lights frequently last longer than the bike lights.

The "syncing" is done in the cross street direction so that each short street has a reasonable chance of being emptied of cars during its cycle.

To put things in perspective, in similar conditions (bugger all traffic), I averaged 8km/hr on the path system on a fast road bike, and 24km/hr onroad on a 15kg DS mountain bike. Matter of fact, even testing the onroad vs cycle path is difficult because I run out of CBD very quickly whilst onroad.

zero wrote:There is no syncing between lights along Kent. Its easily provable by riding it at night, in which case you will have to stop for every light. Tested it once for a couple of laps, and I got 39 red lights, and 1 green. In 100% of the cases, the red light was demand based, ie I would NOT get a green until I went up to and sat on the detectors. If you get a rolling green its because of opposite direction bicycle traffic or a red light runner ahead of you, and the green period is only 5 seconds per 2-3 minute cycle too. I don't even know how we can reliably make a legal turn onto kent from king because the bicycle light goes red before the pedestrian light starts flashing - so if there are pedestrians, you can easily be blocked for the duration of your sequence.

I only ride at peak times (8:15am & 4:45pm) & even without other cyclists waiting they've turned green - i'll have to have a close look. But they've been going well for me so far.

Yeah King --> Kent is a bugger, best bet is to dismount, walk and rejoin the roadway on Kent.

I've got a few questions about the article in the telegraph the other day.

You've stated in your article:Under a proposal from the powerful State Government StaySafe committee, cyclists would have their own green traffic signals to get a head start over vehicles

Where a quick read of the proposal states (p8 Recommendation #7):should be trialled where appropriate.

So it seems you have mis-read the proposal, you have also completely missed recommendation #6 about bike boxes, which when preceding #7 puts it in a lot clearer context, and would mean it is no change in behaviour at the intersection, because bikes would be at the front of the queue anyway, due to the bike box.

Also you have actually mis-quoted section 4.125 as well, you stated:to protect cyclists include putting airbags on the outside of cars

Where as 4.125 states:"potential future developments"... pedestrian protection airbags, which will also assist cyclists Given it is a POTENTIAL FUTURE development, they cannot really call for it to be installed, as they do not really exist in practice, and being a "pedestrian protection airbag" - I would confidently say that it is to protect pedestrians, it is the name that gives that away.

Also in regards to the photograph in the article, were either of you present when it was taken? Has it been cropped at all?As you state: cyclist runs the red lightConveniently there's no actual red light in the photograph, nor anything else that gives the indication he has run the red light.

In fact a keen eye would actually notice that the blue car behind the cyclist has proceeded into the intersection, as it is clearly past the double white lines to the left of the car (looking at the photo).Which would mean that when the photo was taken - the lights were actually green.Also you state it is to get in front of cars, given he is turning right at a busy intersection, and as above the lights turned green - do you have a preceding photograph showing that he was previously behind the line of cars that are turning right?

If you could please clarify those few things above - that would be really appreciated.

Trucks occasionally cause false detects, but if you get a sequence of them opening up ahead of you - its usually a red light runner triggering em - 2 minutes ahead of you is far enough that you won't see the rider concerned, but may benefit.

The worst thing I've videod is a bmw era mini (ie the not so small mini) tailbacking in the kent/king intersection and getting stuck in the bicycle area of the intersection. All the contra flow bikes on King went round the outside of him and into the oncoming traffic lane, because all the riders know they only have 5 seconds in the next 3 minutes to pass the intersection. To me, thats pretty much defeating the purpose of having the lanes and lights because the riders are riding head on into straight accelerating traffic from an invisible position... I had to ride between him and the peds, then push through the peds just to get through on my yellow.

Just has another quick look through the article and you state:speed limits dropped to 30km/h in CBD streets not yet torn up to accommodate cyclists

As per 5.24, they are identifying speed as a risk - and noting that action has been taken in the City of Sydney:According to the City of Sydney submission: "â€¦Lowering speed limits to 40 km/h, or preferably to 30 km/h, in central Sydney

If you ducked over to the City of Sydney website & had a quick look, you would find that 30km/h is again aimed at PEDESTRIANS:http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/comm ... heCity.aspOn Druitt Street a speed limit of 30km/h has been introduced to reduce pedestrian crashes.

Also you stated that Clover Moore told the committee...There's not a single mention of Clover in the report, she's not even referenced as attending any meetings as per the agenda's at the end.Can you please point me to where Clover "told" the committee?

mikesbytes wrote:So this picture is actually supporting the need for the 'cycle first' lights

sorry - but unless i see a red light - then he didnt cross on the red.Odd how the red light somehow didnt make it into the photo

Just had another look at the photo... look at where the blue car is... the car is entirely in front of the end of the double whites (to the left of the car).Which means the car is IN the intersection - i.e. the lights must have gone green as the car is moving into the intersection.

You seem to have mis-read my email, I was not giving my thoughts on your article I was asking questions about it.Can you also please provide the details of your editor so I can raise the issue with them also.

trailgumby wrote:Well done nate.May I suggest you start blind cc'ing (bcc) mediawatch? mediawatch@your.abc.net.auEnsure you include the full email trail.

of course!

next reply....Hi Nathan,

I didn't misread your email. I didn't agree with the content but I did want to acknowledge receiving it. As you have asked for someone senior to raise this with, please send any further correspondence to my chief-of-staff lillian saleh at salehl@dailytelegraph.com.au . She is away until tuesday so it is unlikely you will get a response until then.

trailgumby wrote:Well done nate.May I suggest you start blind cc'ing (bcc) mediawatch? mediawatch@your.abc.net.auEnsure you include the full email trail.

of course!

next reply....Hi Nathan,

I didn't misread your email. I didn't agree with the content but I did want to acknowledge receiving it. As you have asked for someone senior to raise this with, please send any further correspondence to my chief-of-staff lillian saleh at salehl@dailytelegraph.com.au . She is away until tuesday so it is unlikely you will get a response until then.

Regards,Gemma

You're going to have to lower the bar in dealing with Gemma I think Nate. To communicate with an idiot you will have to think like an idiot .

wombatK wrote:. I'd be happy to see cyclists given the same green phase as cars, with the cars obligated to give way when turning across the bicycle lanes - just as cars must give way to vehicles in a lane they wish to cross.

wombatK wrote:. I'd be happy to see cyclists given the same green phase as cars, with the cars obligated to give way when turning across the bicycle lanes - just as cars must give way to vehicles in a lane they wish to cross.

Well that is the current law.

No, what wombat is saying - is to have the green bike as long as the cars & for them to automatically give way.Wont happen though - car sees green & will always hook it across regardless of the bike light.

wombatK wrote:. I'd be happy to see cyclists given the same green phase as cars, with the cars obligated to give way when turning across the bicycle lanes - just as cars must give way to vehicles in a lane they wish to cross.

Well that is the current law.

No, what wombat is saying - is to have the green bike as long as the cars & for them to automatically give way.Wont happen though - car sees green & will always hook it across regardless of the bike light.

Ahhh..... speaking legally, any vehicle turning left from the traffic lane must give way to the bike lane traffic before doing their turn. This is all pretty clear in the road rules.

Victorian Road Rules wrote:148 Giving way when moving from one marked lane or line of traffic to another marked lane or line of traffic(1) A driver who is moving from one marked lane (whether or not the lane is ending) to another marked lane must give way to any vehicle travelling in the same direction as the driver in the marked lane to which the driver is moving.Penalty: 5 penalty units.

il padrone wrote:Ahhh..... speaking legally, any vehicle turning left from the traffic lane must give way to the bike lane traffic before doing their turn. This is all pretty clear in the road rules.

What I was really referring to was the situation which developed on the Bourke St cycleway, which has now got give way signs painted on the cycleway at every intersection. My concern is that it won't be long before they are all marked like this.

Unless a lawyer can tell me otherwise, my guess is that clearly requires the cyclist to give way to everything, and puts the cyclist using the cycleways in a vastly inferior and more vulnerable unsafe position.

WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

il padrone wrote:Ahhh..... speaking legally, any vehicle turning left from the traffic lane must give way to the bike lane traffic before doing their turn. This is all pretty clear in the road rules.

What I was really referring to was the situation which developed on the Bourke St cycleway, which has now got give way signs painted on the cycleway at every intersection. My concern is that it won't be long before they are all marked like this.

Unless a lawyer can tell me otherwise, my guess is that clearly requires the cyclist to give way to everything, and puts the cyclist using the cycleways in a vastly inferior and more vulnerable unsafe position.

I'm confused. Are you saying there is both a green light and a give way sign? That seems to be a contrary indications from the traffic control signals. Plainly unsafe if that is true.

On the bourke st cycleway anytime a street intersects it (for example a T junction) the cycle lane has a give way sign - yes even if the cycle lane is travelling straight. This is ridiculous and against convention for a T-Junction where traffic travelling straight always has right of way over traffic turning left or right.

Just another example of how the RTA has munted the cycle paths to make them more convenient for motorists.

ghettro wrote:On the bourke st cycleway anytime a street intersects it (for example a T junction) the cycle lane has a give way sign - yes even if the cycle lane is travelling straight. This is ridiculous and against convention for a T-Junction where traffic travelling straight always has right of way over traffic turning left or right.

Just another example of how the RTA has munted the cycle paths to make them more convenient for motorists.

I'm glad I don't live in Sydney! Though Melbourne had a similar situation with their Fitzroy St cycle path. However they came (partially) to their senses and removed them. Still it is safer and faster to ride on the road which is flat and 40kph limit.

gemma wrote:Hi Nathan,I didn't misread your email. I didn't agree with the content but I did want to acknowledge receiving it. As you have asked for someone senior to raise this with, please send any further correspondence to my chief-of-staff lillian saleh at ???@dailytelegraph.com.au . She is away until tuesday so it is unlikely you will get a response until then.

Regards,Gemma

me wrote:Thanks for the clarification Gemma.I assume you're not providing your source/a reference where Clover Moore made her statements to the committee?Also you won't answer if you were present when the photo was taken? or specify who was actually there?

gemma wrote:Hi Nathan,At your request, I have already sent you the name and contact details of someone senior. I asked then that you direct all correspondence to that person.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.